More to the point, the only part of the report that doesn't make me want to vomit blood.
from Page 36, the second bullet point... (I'm using the pre-public comment draft)
By October 2014, each jurisdiction will prepare two initial plans that frame the balance between the budget and timeline options.
One initial plan sets a fifty year deadline, and calls for an estimate of the amount of money that Bellingham and the County need to solve the impairment of Lake Whatcom in that time.
The other initial plan establishes the existing and likely sources of revenue that Bellingham and the County can bring to bear right now, and calls for an estimate of the amount of time needed to solve the impairment of Lake Whatcom.
This is both irritating and borderline brilliant.
It would help if Steve Hood could have written it in a clearer manner. But, in his defense, he is an engineer and he probably thinks that he is being clear, bless his heart.
The reason for requiring these two plans is explained in the third bullet point on page 36... (again, using the pre-public comment draft)
...These plans provide the public, policy makers, and reviewers a framework for deciding what is an acceptable timeline and budget for meeting TMDL goals and Washington State water quality standards.
That explanation is not completely dreadful, but I think I can do better.
Compare it to planning to finance a mortgage.
If you start with the basis that you have a 30 year mortgage, you can determine what your mortgage payment is per month.
If you start with the monthly payment you prefer for your budget, you can determine the duration of your mortgage.
If you want to pay off the mortgage sooner than 30 years, your monthly payments have to be higher. If you want your monthly payments to be lower, your have to agree to a mortgage that is longer than 30 years.
The City and County will have to make a determination of how much revenue they believe they will need, year in and year out, to pay a 50 year "mortgage" on Lake Whatcom's restoration.
I shall, for the sake of this article, set that amount at a blatantly fictious Umpty Hundred Thousand Dollars per year.
I don't know exactly what it will be, but I'm of the opinion that the revenue needed in order to address the Lake's impairment will be at least an order of magnitude of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year.
The City and County will then have to make a determination of how long the term of the "mortgage" on Lake Whatcom's restoration would need to be, based on their preferred budget today.
Assume that the City and the County establish that they believe they can restore the lake in 50 years with Umpty Hundred Thousand Dollars per year.
Regardless what the actual dollar amount is, they can't turn around and credibly claim that if they spend less money than that per year, they can restore the lake faster. That's like saying you can lower your monthly payments on your mortgage and pay off your 30 year mortgage in 20 years.
These two initial plans seem to be designed to force the City and County to deal with two economic and political realities.
One... that 50 years is a generous amount of time to address this issue. There is no way to complain that 50 years is not enough time to solve the problem without also looking cheap, selfish and short-sighted.
Two... that today's existing, and likely, revenues available to address Lake Whatcom's impairment are unlikely to be anywere near what is needed to solve the problem in 50 years.
Bellingham and Whatcom County have just over a year to claim... in writing... that they are too cheap to pay for lake restoration in 50 years. And if they need more than 50 years, they have to clarify... in writing... how many more years beyond 50 that they are going to need to kick this can down the road.
But it is better than that still...
Imagine that our local polticians (too many of whom are too clever by half) assert in writing that the existing revenues we have now are adequate to clean up Lake Whatcom in 50 years.
The option of cutting existing and likely revenues is then off the table. Because with less revenue, it will take more than 50 years. And with more revenue...we could restore the Lake in perhaps 30 years. Right?
Imagine that our same resident political savants assert in writing that the existing revenues are adequate to clean up Lake Whatcom in 30 years.
The option of cutting existing and likely revenue is still off the table. Because if we can solve the Lake Whatcom problem in 30 years, there is no reason (other than being a bunch of cheap bastards) to solve the problem in 50 years.
The City and the County have until October of next year to decide just how cheap, selfish and short-sighted they want to admit they are about addressing Lake Whatcom.
I look forward to reading these initial plans with abated breath.
'Nerd Out
No comments:
Post a Comment